Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CHAPTER VI - ESTIMATED COSTS <br /> <br />Construction Costs <br /> <br />The estimated cost for a qualified contractor to construct <br />the improvements to Summit Reservoir are divi~ed into 4 items <br />which were described in Chapter V. The items and the cost of each <br />is summarized below in Table VI -.A. <br /> <br />Table VI - A <br />Summit Reservoir and Irrigation Company <br />Construction Cost Summary <br /> <br />Item , Cost <br /> <br />I. Ground Recoptouring <br />2. Raise Dike Crest <br />3. Backfill below west outlet <br />4. Middle South Dike Filter <br />Total <br /> <br />$ 9,782.00 <br />2,408.00 <br />5,176.00 <br />52,634.00 <br />$70,000.00 <br /> <br />A breakdown of the quantities and unit costs are shown in <br />Table VI - B at the end of .this cha~te~. <br /> <br />The unit costs were. derived from several sources. Thecosts <br />for ~quipment, such as the tractor and backhoe, were obtained from <br />local contractors. Material costs of common backfill and filter <br />material were obtained from local contractors and from Bureau of <br />Reclamation data for small construction projects: <br /> <br />Some of the unit prices vary from one item to another. For <br />instance common excavation and backfill is less expensive in. Item <br />3 than Item 2 because of the haul distance and difficulty in plac- <br />ing the material. In Item 3 the haul .is only a few hundred feet <br />and tnere is plenty of room to maneuvre equipment. In Item 2, <br />however, the haul is as much as 1~ miles over the crest of the <br />dike and there is no room to turn around or pass.anothervehicle; <br />the roller ~nd trucks can not work simultaneously and traffic can <br />only be in one direction at a time. The result is a much higher <br />cost for the material which is reflected in the unit costs. <br /> <br />Minor costs such.as PVC pipe, direct labor, etc., were <br />obtained from local sources or estimates from other areas. The <br />minor costs, even' in total, do not have a significant impact on <br />the construction cost.' <br /> <br />A contingency factor of 20% of the itemized costs was used, <br />as recommended in the CWCB manua~. The contingency is a substan- <br />tial component of the overall cost but there was not justification <br />for reduction. For instance the contingency may be needed in <br />the event a source of filter material is not readily found. <br />Sufficient data is not available to reduce the contingency from <br />20% to 15%. <br /> <br />-31- <br />